Famous car designers together: Loewy, Buehrig, Exner, Bourke, Gardiner, Alroth, etc.

[Gary_Ash]

Here's a photo I saw today at the Studebaker National Museum in South Bend, IN, haven't seen it before.  Loewy and his firm designed for Studebaker, employed many designers who went on to Ford, GM, and Chrysler.  But, on one particular day, they were all together at Studebaker for this photo.  It looks like they were working on the models for the 1947 Studebakers, so maybe this is 1945-46.  You can read about many of them at http://www.coachbuilt.com.

 

[3macboys]

Makes you wonder what would have become of Studebaker if they had all stayed together...or the other companies for that matter

[Brass is Best]

Some of the best right there. When you study automobile design you quickly realize that a handful of talented people are responsible for a majority of the great cars. Knowing what looks good is not something that can be taught. Being able to draw a car and then translate it into a three dimensional object is truly a gift from God. 

[John Byrd]

Gary_Ash, I knew Budd ( one of the Loewy boys ) for a few years and heard some fabulous stories from him, especially from his Tucker and Loewy days. At a party one evening here in Kailua-Kona, one of our guys in our little car club bunch was leaving and moving back to the mainland. He had a 53 Studebaker coupe that his wife's Dad had bought new and loved that car. Budd was there of course, as the party giver lived in the same complex, and I had got a large pic of Bob & Alice's 53 Stude printed and ready to frame. My wife was one of Budd's favorite "listeners" and I went over to him and asked if he would sign Raymond Loewy's name to the print. He did, it looked perfect, and we all had a great laugh and boy oh boy, did that ever bring out the questions and stories !!!  Budd drove a Miata by the way, lol. ...... Super gentleman that we all miss very much.

 

https://www.idsa.org/news/passages/memory-budd-steinhilber-fidsa

Edited April 29, 2022 by John Byrd (see edit history)

[Walt G]

1 hour ago, Brass is Best said:

Knowing what looks good is not something that can be taught. Being able to draw a car and then translate it into a three dimensional object is truly a gift from God.

I  studied art and taught it for nearly 40 years these words  are absolutely correct.

[edinmass]

David Holls was a good friend. You have it or you don’t. 99.999 percent don’t. 

[TTR]

Cool picture, for sure, but what I find interesting (historically speaking) is the (lack of) ethnic diversity with only two females (sisters, judging by last name ?) in the mix.

[Gary_Ash]

I found this interview of Audrey Moore Hodges that discusses her experiences working in automotive design, including mention of Virginia and Nancy Spence (mother and daughter), at Studebaker plus lots about Tucker history.  Fascinating!

 

http://www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/Design/Hodges_interview.htm

[Bhigdog]

Lowey was a prolific and diversified designer. I have a sunbeam toaster he designed. It,s beautiful....bob

[rocketraider]

Boy- giants there. Thanks for sharing it.

 

TTR- consider the times. You cannot realistically hold earlier peoples to current and modern standards. What was acceptable 70 years ago doesn't pass muster now, but it's counterproductive if not futile to try to hold those folks to modern ideas.

[Brass is Best]

5 hours ago, Walt G said:

I  studied art and taught it for nearly 40 years these words  are absolutely correct.

I have a degree in Industrial Design. My freshman class was over 330 people. Every one of them thought they were the next Bill Mitchell. Four years later 70 of us graduated. Twenty years later I can only think of 10 or so that still work as car designers.

[SC38dls]

Too bad the genius at the head of Studebaker weren’t half as good as the designers. But I still like the style, design and drivability of my 38 Studebaker 

State Commander. 
dave s 

[58L-Y8]

Studebaker contracted with Raymond Loewy Associates for design services in 1936, the 1938 models the first on which the results are in evidence.   Loewy himself was very adept at recognizing and hiring the best design talent available, assigning them to his various industrial design client offices and projects. He was also skilled at selling reluctant management on progressive new designs which otherwise they were apprehensive about being a market hit.  Other than early on, there is little evidence Loewy sketched or designed any of what was latter produced. 

 

What the staged image shows is one of Raymond Loewy's occasional visits to his Studebaker-South Bend design department.  While Studebaker received first-class design services from a group of some of the most talented individuals in the industry, it was also very costly.  The following is from Studebaker: The Postwar Years by Richard M. Langworth, page 81:

 

""The Loewy contract ran out in early 1955" Bob Bourke says. "And Studebaker-Packard's new management decided not to renew it" The decision was partly made because Nance had built up his own house styling team at Packard, and partly because the Loewy contract was incredibly expensive " Our billings were about a million a year," Bourke recalls.  "This included a lot of wood worker and clay modelers too. Lowey marked up everything.  Salaries were marked up one hundred percent. I want to be very clear about this-it was entirely customary to mark-up that much.  But at the time I think it was the largest single industrial design account, and it was very expensive for Studebaker"

[TTR]

13 hours ago, rocketraider said:

TTR- consider the times.

Perhaps you missed my point about “historically speaking” ?

 

13 hours ago, rocketraider said:

You cannot realistically hold earlier peoples to current and modern standards. What was acceptable 70 years ago doesn't pass muster now, but it's counterproductive if not futile to try to hold those folks to modern ideas.

???

Perhaps it’s me, but comment like that doesn’t make much sense, at least not to me, as it seems to imply condoning anything that might’ve been considered “acceptable” by previous generations, be it in support of ethnic or gender disparities, or various atrocities committed throughout the history.

 

[alsancle]

36 minutes ago, TTR said:

Perhaps you missed my point about “historically speaking” ?

 

???

Perhaps it’s me, but comment like that doesn’t make much sense, at least not to me, as it seems to imply condoning anything that might’ve been considered “acceptable” by previous generations, be it in support of ethnic or gender disparities, or various atrocities committed throughout the history.

 

 

You realize you are on a car forum?

[Buffalowed Bill]

IMHO in 1956 Studebaker regressed from a position of innovative industry to one of following the industry design mainstream. The "shoe box" ruled American auto design, and that's the direction Studebaker followed. "Different by design," as a slogan and a mantra was watered down to the point that little was left of what design had once meant to the company.

 

Lowey was again hired to try to breath some life back into the company by designing the Avanti. The effort failed and I'll just leave it at that. To be clear IMHO nothing could save any of the American independents, but Studebaker did a better job then thousands of other car manufacturers. 

[TTR]

3 hours ago, alsancle said:

 

You realize you are on a car forum?

Actually, I do and, perhaps mistakenly, thought this being one somewhat dedicated to their history, hence my initial comment referring to both* or at least that was my intention, but then someone else decided to shift the focus to their interpretation or perception of latter.

 

* I’ve been seriously interested in and informal student of both (cars and history) since my early teens, i.e. for nearly 50 years and counting…

Edited April 30, 2022 by TTR (see edit history)

[58L-Y8]

18 hours ago, Buffalowed Bill said:

IMHO in 1956 Studebaker regressed from a position of innovative industry to one of following the industry design mainstream. The "shoe box" ruled American auto design, and that's the direction Studebaker followed. "Different by design," as a slogan and a mantra was watered down to the point that little was left of what design had once meant to the company.

 

Lowey was again hired to try to breath some life back into the company by designing the Avanti. The effort failed and I'll just leave it at that. To be clear IMHO nothing could save any of the American independents, but Studebaker did a better job then thousands of other car manufacturers. 

The turn toward styling that conformed to general industry themes was directed from Detroit by James Nance, S-P President.   In addition to the recognition that S-P could no longer afford the Loewy contract, the 'European look' Loewy promoted was blamed for the diminished sales and financial losses incurred by the Studebaker Division.  The break from Loewy was abetted by the in-house styling departments that were being developed.

Of course, the problems Studebaker was experiencing were caused by far more that something as superficial as styling.   Of it, the public had enthusiastically embraced the low, lithe "Loewy" coupes and hardtops actually designed by Bob Bourke.  It was the tall, dumpy sedans, which were the volume lifeblood of any manufacturer, that were rejected by the public.   Loewy had also pushed his "weight is the enemy" mantra a step too far:  the resultant 1953 Studebakers were perceived as flimsy, insubstantial cars compared to prior models.  Add onto this perception that Studebakers were priced 10-12% higher than comparable models from direct competitors was turning the buyers elsewhere.  The price perception was legitimate: South Bend labor costs were out of line with the industry standards due to a powerful local UAW chapter, a compliant management "who never took a strike" and low productivity standards.  

 

The 1956 Studebaker sedans and wagons were restyled by Vince Gardner, who you see in the photo.  He was on the Loewy staff when the photo was taken.  He left later to open his own design consultancy in Detroit.  When the question of what to do about the 1956 sedans and wagon arose, Gardner was hired to create styling for new front clip and rear quarter/trunk added to the unchanged central body, in the current styling themes enforced by GM et al.  The imperative was also to impart a familial look with the 1956 Packards and Clippers as well.

Other than the Loewy-Avanti episode, the in-house styling department handled subsequent jobs with the mandate to keep the cars marketable without extreme, polarizing tangents.  Later on, the young, hard-driving S-P president Sherwood Egbert brought Brooks Stevens onboard to update and refresh the Hawks and Larks on a shoestring budget that would have made Raymond Loewy just roll his eyes... 

Make an astute observation...
Steve
 

 

[rocketraider]

I'd like to own a Bulletnose of any bodystyle or a 53-55 coupe, but not that easy to find in this area.

 

A fellow who has done a lot of mechanical work for me has a 1955 sedan that's in fair shape in Studebaker's ubiquitous mid-50s pale yellow. I've thought about it.

 

Then the voice says "get yer Oldsmobiles squared away first!!"

 

Won't someone give this old Commander V8 sedan a home so I won't take on another save?🥺

[8E45E]

On 4/29/2022 at 2:40 PM, 3macboys said:

Makes you wonder what would have become of Studebaker if they had all stayed together...or the other companies for that matter

Just because they worked together didn't mean they all got along.  Story has it, Virgil Exner and Raymond Loewy had a fallout after it was discovered he was moonlighting on his own for Studebaker, independently designing the front clip for the Champion and Commanders for 1947, as engineer, Roy Cole found it difficult to work around Raymond Loewy's more radical front end styling proposal, which did appear for 1950 with the bulletnose design.  In the end, as everyone knows, Virgil Exner went to work for Chrysler.

 

Craig